One of the greatest threats to a functioning political system is the tendency of our elected leaders to “speak in code.”
Politicians are often criticized as being slick, mercurial, or even two-faced, flip-floppers. So a politician who is perceived as a straight talker or plain speaker is often rewarded with accolades – since many believe a politician’s primary function is to be able to communicate with his or her constituents and then translate those communications into policy. If this communication is lacking, then success in the political arena is almost always a non-starter.
Unfortunately many, many politicians opt for something that might be described as speaking in code. And while this may be a necessary skill for a diplomat, it should not be de rigueur for most politicians. Presumably the reason for speaking in code is that subtle encoded messages will be understood by those to whom it is directed, without being inflammatory to a wider population. But this disregards the reality that it’s the wider population that politicians serve and not just the “chattering class.”
Code speak is evident not only in reluctance to “name names.” It’s often employed when politicians are asked simple yes or no questions – the politician may hedge his or her bets and answer in the broadest way possible so that he or she has sufficient wiggle room for the future. During campaigns the most jaded politicians won’t even answer the question directly at all, but rather just repeat one of many memorized talking points – one that seems to best fit the bill of the message they prefer to discuss.
The problem with code is that you have to have the right decoder ring, or a piece of the code may get lost in translation. The subtle verbal pheromones that may be detectable by other members of the political class are often not discernable to mere mortals. And while this may endear politicians to each other, it often creates confusion among the people that they represent.
Politicians are most likely to lapse onto code speak during parliamentary debates and speeches. This is when they have their largest audiences so they dilute their message to the point where it’s most palatable to the greatest number of people. And while that may be a great election strategy, it’s never a good strategy for making sure that the public stays informed.
When names are named, and policy flaws are openly and directly addressed with constructive criticism, politicians are serving their highest functions. This doesn’t mean that personal attacks or diatribes are acceptable, but it does mean that the often loquacious orations of the political class should be distilled to their essence before being disseminated. Indeed, one need look no further than our own Calvin Coolidge who was once bet that he could be made to respond to a request with at least three words – to which he replied, “you lose.”
